picture of mary kelly's room

[Steve F]

Book??

Hi Johnsonandrew
When is the book due out and any title yet??

[RJM]

i have seen the original photo and have blown the photo up, used negative type, and used every image tool to see if this is grain or pattern of the wallpaper or blood. in every photo used in books, black or the original damaged photo[the original has to be be enlarged to see images] the images are there.
andy

I wonder if you could clarify something for me, Andy. Which photograph of Mary Kelly are you referring to?
1) The copy Don Rumbelow found in 1967
2) The copy that was returned in 1988
3) The one published by Lamoureux (1894) and Lacassagne (1899).

What is the exact source for the photograph have you blown up? A book, or a scan off of the internet, or the NA at Kew? It makes an enormous difference to what can be seen. If you've just blown up an image from a book, or from a scan taken from the internet then the resulting observations are too many generations removed from the original to have validity.

When I wrote my book, I studied direct scans of the Rumbelow and 1988 prints, and found many differences between the two. I also looked at the first published pictures of Mary Kelly in Lamoureux's De l'Éventration au point de vue médico-légal (1894), and Lacassagne's Vacher l'Eventreur et les crimes sadiques (1899); the two earliest known publications of the MJK photo, which is clearly a different print than Rumbelow's or the returned 1988 one, and also contains different information as to what exactly can and can not be seen.

Cheers,

Robert

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Robert!

Exactly to the point!

Here are my greetings to johnsonandrew;

To get a whole picture - so to say - about different variations with different copies, I suggest you to visit the following thread:

The "crucifix" on MJK photo!

All the best
Jukka

[j.r-ahde]

Hello again, johnsonandrew!

That thread can be found from the "Victims" section about Mary Jane Kelly!

All the best
Jukka

[johnsonandrew]

murder scene

hi, it was nice to get some response to my first comment on the case, and an intelligent response aswell, thanks. firstly, if i thought my detection was that of a simple cross on the wall[ which i do no about from years back] I even had doubts on the original FM story through the dairy, and that photo in the diary is different to other photos, it has no smudge over the supposed F, so i take everybody's point, in JTR case no one is 100% sure on any thing, but as in the dairy, experts said there is nothing there, its smudges or grain so just forget about it because they know for a fact! no one knows for a fact including me, but sometimes you have to go over old ground to find something out of so called nothing.
regards to visual evidence, assumption based on violent paintings is a theory, and is not hard evidence, what i found in the sketch was 4tM, not looked like or blending into but placed in the sketch, what this means i do not no, but interestingly I googled it and physics and maths featured, real complicated stuff, sickert was the first painter to use such in painting, if the same does so happen to be at the murder scene surely that would be evidence, to my knowledge no evidence has been captured through photographs, because there is no hard evidence in the JTR case. still on the subject of sickert, experts discount he new infomation of any sort connected to the JTR case, this is the closed minded view, i am not suggesting he was, but he knew something i believe.
cheers
andy.

[johnsonandrew]

hi steve F, the main reason to enter my thoughts on casebook is to get a feed back from different people, i will not be ready to release a book unless I am sure its the truth, already, which i wanted questions have got me to do more research from casebook punters which there are some very clued up people, there is something to learn every day by viewing this site, well from those who have a real passion for the case, it will take a life time to venture into the truths of JTR if one is ready to give so much, it could be an endles pit, so no date on release, i have writers block on certain things and it looks like im asking for help through casebook, but it's likely i will never give up the ghost, im hooked. like you said if one could have a time machine one could say so much more, thats if he did not kill too, you prowling around his patch, always the clever Jack to come up behind you!

[johnsonandrew]

hi RJM.
what was the basis of your book! and was it published? i would be very interested, as the questions you asked are important, I have taken pictures from various books, but also, which thought was the met police original, which features in the casebook pictures, was the original lost for sometime and surfaced much later because I was unaware of this, if I am correct in the response you gave me is that the original photo is never the original we see today from the met, not one is pure. I did find the response confusing, what I want to know is there any original pure from the met, and have you seen it. the reason i have come to casebook is to get views on different aspects, i said i was writing a book but need more to question my doubts, my book covers the history of London, which i do come from, down to the connections with MJK's landord with the theatre, Marie Lloyed, another question i want answered is the distance from the photo outside MJK's room, looking at the photo, arms length through the broken window seems impossible, and i no about statements that barnett showed Aberline to enter the room through the broken window with no question, which makes things more confusing.
cheers.
andy

[caz]

Hi Andy,

If you want a good cheap proofreader for your upcoming book, PM me. I'm happy to do you a special deal - only Ł1 a word.

I think you'll find it will prove great value and double your income from royalties.

Love,

Caz
X

PS This was a joke thread, wasn't it?

[Mike Covell]

hi RJM.
what was the basis of your book! and was it published?

Robert J McLaughlin wrote the excellent and much sought after "The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs".

It is a fantastic book, but they are like gold dust, possibly rarer!

[claire]

Hi Andy,

If you want a good cheap proofreader for your upcoming book, PM me. I'm happy to do you a special deal - only Ł1 a word.

I think you'll find it will prove great value and double your income from royalties.

Love,

Caz
X

PS This was a joke thread, wasn't it?

I offer a similar service at a similar rate; however, because I deal only with elite writers of serious works, I will only look at books of greater than 150,000 words...

[caz]

Hi Claire,

Ah, I didn't bother mentioning that for supposedly 'elite writers of serious works' I only charge 25p per word regardless, because if they haven't done most of the work for me before I get to see the manuscript I can always blackmail them later.

Love,

Caz
X

[JASON1234]

What Does F M Stand For

In Reply To Your Question What Does Fm Stand For James Maybricks Wife Was Called Florence Maybrick Hence F M Who Was Having An Affair At The Time

[Iconoclast]

Hi catvance and welcome-

Here's the ubiquitous Diary pic with the alarmingly readable FM (especially if you narrow your eyes!)
[ATTACH]902[/ATTACH]
But try and squint as I may I've never seen anything comparable in any other MJK1/2 anywhere either ...I agree with Philip......a clumsy tampering!

Now an idol of Baphomet??????.....OBVIOUS!

Suzi

This one goes right back to 2008 (I was flicking through the back pages of the Casebook in a moment of pre-season boredom).

I have addressed this in my seminal work of genius elsewhere (the 'History vs Maybrick' thread). The 'F' and the 'M' (the latter with the journal's familiar rising second-half) are clear to see in every version I have ever seen published of this tragically famous death scene. They are not in debate, and they have most definitely not been enhanced.

Unless, of course, you consider such arch critics of the journal as Philip Sugden and Trevor Marriott as the type of likely lads who might do such a spot of enhancing?

I appreciate that my response is now eight years late (a bit like our 'Glum in the Brum', Graham), but I don't think the shifting sands of all that time passing have really changed our view that greatly. The journal provides the answer to the question of who Jack was. It explains it neatly, albeit it with a couple of aspects which may still sit uncomfortably with us ('Poste House', 'Costly intercourse', et cetera).

My favourite moment of last year (other than beating West Ham 2-0) was when I suddenly saw in the Goulston Street Graffito references to every significant adult in Maybrick's life. If the journal can help us to unravel the aged complexities of the early morning chalkings of Saucy Jacky then we should not dismiss it as casually as we do.

Indeed, we shouldn't dismiss it at all ...

50 years of 'hurt', and now a day. But hope springs eternal for the boys in blue and orange! And the Maybrick journal!

[stevey]

Now that the diary has been proven genuine, I just wanna say I am back to believing it was Maybrick again.

You sure that's not at least an M written on Mary Kelly's inside right leg?
I can definitely make out an M there. "An initial here and an initial there" the diarist said.

[drstrange169]

Bring back Baphomet!